In late August 2013 RK published a detail analysis of what we called “An enigmatic Main Carpet: the ex-Ballard MC”.
The ex-Ballard collection MC, now in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York
It remains online here:
On April 2, 2015 a reader, ms francesca fiorintino, posted a comment which said:
"May be this work can be of some interest:
That same day RK replied to her post as follows:
Well, considering you have added very little to our analysis and in some places drawn references to motifs that have been cut in half and were not originally like they look now, RK finds it somewhat perplexing you think your work will "be of some interest" to us or our readership.
Frankly it appears to us you have only posted here to get people to read what you wrote, regardless of the fact you have added little of value to what we have already published.
And the fallacy of your main point, which basically infers the lowly peasants who produced Turkmen rugs were the receivers, and not the originators, of iconography found on trans-Caucasian type weavings.
This is typical for rugDUMB to presuppose the so-called "high culture" of Ottoman Turkey, or in this case Persia, was the transmitter, and not the beneficiary, of complex iconography like that seen on the Hecksher, Ballard and other related Turkmen carpets.
Next time you decide to inform RK and our readers of your work, at least do something more original. And by the way we find your failure to cite our work in your bibliography another problem.
We surely understand why, as any reader thus informed would have to agree with our view you have basically plagiarized what we have already published, adding little other than what we point to above.
Soon the plot thickened, or should we say sickened as the next post of ours makes patently clear:
The absurdity of denial continues
Ms Fiorentino, the author of an amazingly similar analysis to that which appears here on RugKazbah.com, has now claimed on her blog that she did not know about ours before she published hers.
Well, all that might seem fine in DisneyLand but in reality it is as nonsensical as believing ms Fiorentino can fly like tinkerbell and wave a magic wand to create a reality of her own choosing.
First off, how does one explain ms Fiorentino now claiming in a comment posted to her blog she did not know about RK's much earlier work, published in August 2013, on the same subject with all of the same pictures?
How believable is that considering ms Fiorentino wrote into RugKazbah.com in the early morning of April 2, 2015 to draw attention to her blog post, which had just been published 48 or so hours before, on March 30, 2015?
To make her claims of ignorance of our work even more transparently dubious ms Fiorentino has been a known reader of RugKazbah.com since at least August 2014.
We know this for a fact because she emailed RK with some questions about a rug we had published in our comments of the eric riseman Christie's sale.
So did ms.fiorentino now dig herself deeper into the shitpile of denial she fell in by denying she knew of our work and plagiarized it?
Sure seems that way from the facts.
Also, on her blog she now acknowledges RK's work in her bibliography. This is the same place she denies having seen it prior to writing and publishing hers, so why then cite it after the fact?
Does she believe this makes her copying our work acceptable?
Yessshhh, what a crooked road this lady walks.
Digging the hole for herself even deeper fiorintino then claimed on her blog that she “forgot” about having seen our analysis as her excuse.
Seems on second thought this also did not work out well for her, so she quickly removed it as well as the incredulous comment to the contrary we placed on her blog comments section.
Then after receiving an even more incredibly inane email from fiorintino we posted the following to RugKazbah.com:
“After getting busted with proof of being a reader of RugKazbah.com since August 2014, added to the totally incontrovertible evidence of using a photo identifiable only from our work, ms fiorientino wrote us the following lame as a dead dog excuse.
"Dear Mr. Cassin,
this is really a sad story... I read your article after having published mine, and I changed my photo in a second time because yours is better, as I did in other papers of mine."
And of course, ms Fiorintino, are we all to assume that same dead dog saw you do it and he is a character witness for you?
What bullshit is this.
Ms Fiorintino clearly could not tell the truth if her life depended on it.
We've had enough. Good riddance to ms Fiorintino and her forked tongue.
By the way, here is the photo to prove fiorintino took it from our work and used it in hers.
Notice the thin white line in the middle of the left side edge where our webmaster did not totally crop out the old background color.
Then go look at fiorintino's, it's the same. Her excuse, however, is so impossibly duplicitous it makes mockery of that word.
So who is francesca fiorintino?
In a reply to a message we sent her the other day she identified herself as a researcher for the Moshe Tabibnia Gallery.
RK might suggest to mr Tabibnia hiring “researchers” who do their own research and not copy what others have done.
But more importantly when caught redhanded at least have the honesty to admit their plagiarism and not try to wiggle out of it like they were wearing an electric shock hula-hoop fiorintino style.
PS: RK has had no contact with, or even seen anything written by fiorintino, since the incident above but the other day when we were on surfing facebook we noticed she is a more than occassional facebook jockey who uses fb to advertise her blog, which by the way still has the article she wrote using our photos and ideas about them.
We cannot say we read all the ten or so other entries but what we did read impressed us even less than that first one, guess she is far better at plagiarizing than creating content.
See for yourself: